4 ms·
I'm not sure what your point is, from that link: "Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constituti
by culled 16y ago
I'm not sure what your point is, from that link: "Today, defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)."
- raganwald 16y agoI am pointing out a similar debate and suggesting that people form their own conclusions. I personally think that speech about other people's religious or cultural beliefs is an extremely complex issue and that there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree. I'm a Canadian and while I admit they are imperfect, I fully support our Hate Crime legislation that forbids many forms of speech that are permitted in the USA. At the same time, I understand why the USA takes a different road and I support that as well. So to sum it up, my point is, "Isn't the debate about flag burning interesting in the context of the debate about cartoons?"
- jey 16y agoWhat's the difference between "illegal speech" and "thought crime"?